Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 10
crystal sage

Immortals

194 posts in this topic

If you chemistry teacher told you that, then they an idiot and lack what I would consider the basic level of scientific knowledge to teach.

Uncalled for

Not even worth a response. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have that the wrong way round, if there is no evidence of resurrection (and there isn't even evidence that Jesus even existed) then why do you want evidence of it happening.

It is neither logical nor scientifically possible, basic biology tells you that. If you chemistry teacher told you that, then they an idiot and lack what I would consider the basic level of scientific knowledge to teach. All human cells are finite, with finite amount of reproduction. When you die, the reactions and chemicals that made you, you cease to react and bacteria and fungi and possibly another animal consume you. Death is a certainty.

Uncalled for

Not even worth a response. :angry:

What about responding the rest of his post? About how the human body works?

Nibs

Edited by HerNibs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[I came across this site looking for information on biological immortality.

Its says that biological immortality has been achieved, but it will only be available to humans not infected with the dooms day virus beg spread by fundamentalist religions and governments.

Those chosen will be moved off world.

<a href="http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_autor_sokolov2.htm" target="_blank">BI Project</a>

That was a good link...Thanks for posting

BTW...Welcome Abroad

I hope you enjoy your stay

Thanks

B???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uncalled for

Not even worth a response. :angry:

It is not uncalled for if your chemistry teacher told you that they clearly are inept in science. GCSE level science would tell that what they said is simply not true.

Edited by Mattshark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not uncalled for if your chemistry teacher told you that they clearly are inept in science. GCSE level science would tell that what they said is simply not true.

There is evidence that Jesus existed people wrote about him...if you wish to present that there is no scientific evidence that Jesus Christ a man, claimed to have existed 2000 years ago? That is a baseless claim.

Are the skeptics of this forum suggesting that it is impossible and presenting there is no venue :yes:

Humans cannot mutate??

What possible reasons could skeptics have to claim that a favorable mutation cannot occur in the human race??

None....and why?? Because in fact that would not make sense...why? Because in reality animals mutate and also favorable mutations could result in development in the human brain, altogether unkown to the present human condition (except in religious text). Why could that be possible? Favorable mutations like wings to birds they are things that occur but over millions of years but they do occur. Evolution states today that humans have been on Earth for 250,000.00 years.

I have heard that many scientist do not consider the issue of evolution in the human race is that true Mattshark? :yes: ?

Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is evidence that Jesus existed people wrote about him...if you wish to present that there is no scientific evidence that Jesus Christ a man, claimed to have existed 2000 years ago? That is a baseless claim.

This debate is not for this forum.

Are the skeptics of this forum suggesting that it is impossible and presenting there is no venue :yes:

I am stating the humans don't rise from the dead after three days. With no medical intervention. It is impossible.

Humans cannot mutate??

Into werewolves, vampires and immortals? NO. They don't.

What possible reasons could skeptics have to claim that a favorable mutation cannot occur in the human race??

No one has stated that.

None....and why?? Because in fact that would not make sense...why? Because in reality animals mutate and also favorable mutations could result in development in the human brain, altogether unkown to the present human condition (except in religious text). Why could that be possible? Favorable mutations like wings to birds they are things that occur but over millions of years but they do occur. Evolution states today that humans have been on Earth for 250,000.00 years.

This makes no sense.

I have heard that many scientist do not consider the issue of evolution in the human race is that true Mattshark? :yes: ?

Any thoughts?

My thought is that your "headhunting" of Matt is really out of place here and you should knock it off and stick to the topic.

Nibd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thought is that your "headhunting" of Matt is really out of place here and you should knock it off and stick to the topic

Considering that I am a member of an indigenous culture your presentation is provocative :innocent:

HerNibs is it possible that about 2000 years a go a man was born which genetically should have been born about a billion years from now??

That ia not hard to understand and in fact it is perfectly plausible...given that human beings survive another billion years it is possible that the things Jesus Christ did, without technology of any kind, be possible???

Sure....Evolution on that scale could generate a human being that can walk on water and raise the dead and a person could be born like that, prior, to that being the norm and in respect, to the total of human population. The fact that such a human was being born, could have resulted, in all the events presented in the Holy Bible in relation to, prior and after, his birth.

When one reads the Holy Bible or any other religious work one should take seriously, into consideration the time scales presented, before each of these prophets were born.

Humans beings have been around for 250,000.00 and that is only in relation to the Genus...

Any thoughts?

Edited by Triad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure....Evolution on that scale could generate a human being that can walk on water and raise the dead and a person could be born like that, prior, to that being the norm and in respect, to the total of human population. The fact that such a human was being born, could have resulted, in all the events presented in the Holy Bible in relation to, prior and after, his birth.

Evolution could not produce a man capable of walking on water (and not just because evolution only affects populations not individuals), that is down to basic physics, we are the wrong shape and far too heavy.

If you want to know why: Surface tension

Again raising the dead is biology not viable and certainly not a mutation or as an evolutionary trait. When you die you start to decompose straight away, cells stop all homeostasis and autolysis (Self digestion) starts on the cells meaning that even just after a few minutes the brain is damaged.

Jesus is not a fact. There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard of another type of immortals (and I never heard about those from the OP article). Mind you, I do not believe in them, so the following is a hearsay.

The great sinners (normally religious people) have a great fear of physical death, so great that they cannot force themselves to die, as they expect a severe punishment in afterlife. In all our measures these people must be already dead, as their time is over and has been over perhaps thousands years ago. So, they lose their normal human mentality and devote themselves to survival on any terms. They already cannot get energy for life from food, as they are not living people or a life form in any sense except they are still existing. So, they subdue sensitive men and women, making them witches, and control a cluster of such spiritual slaves around themselves. This control causes a witch to be always emotionally stressed and irrational, having no internal peace of mind ever, so the immortal Master forces them to prey gullible young people and under disguise of love make them emotionally vulnerable; as soon as this is reached, a witch sucks their energy, and the Immortal sucks this energy from the witches. As a reward of doing this, a witch receives a few days of inner comfort, but then the vicious cycle repeats with another person.

This may last for centuries. The Immortals change countries, names, nationalities in a fear to disclose their real age. They are eternal vagrants whom we see as people of undeterminable age, working and living next to us. They learn new languages, dialects, cultures etc and survive anywhere in the world, kept alive by their fear to die. They know a lot - but they would never talk about this knowledge, fearing to get in a cage of some elite Gerontology Institute, where the well-paid doctors would be taking their organs to fit the needs of some multibillionaire, who also does not want to die. Terrible lifestyle!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NEVER has any been provided. Just excuses - "Why do I have to prove anything to you?", "The government will take me away and do tests.", "Unless you believe you can't see the evidence."

Don't forget the "Government Cover-up" theory, it is very popular too, They go "People have been living for 400 years, The government hides it from the people so that normal people won't go mad/die/fight/be jealous etc". The coverup excuse has been used on almost every claim.

There is simply no evidence of Immortality or Resurrection and The Bible is not a book of facts. We will all die, Death is the ultimate truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they really exist and i know 2 of them...Duncan and Connor Mcleod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I told you before, vampires are not immortal.

They use the word "mortal" to show they are superior to us.

Some are immortal. Most, like humans, are not.

Am I going to have to start repeating myself?

true, vampires ar not immortal. but they do age slower then most people. about 20 yrs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This debate is not for this forum.

I am stating the humans don't rise from the dead after three days. With no medical intervention. It is impossible.

Into werewolves, vampires and immortals? NO. They don't.

No one has stated that.

This makes no sense.

My thought is that your "headhunting" of Matt is really out of place here and you should knock it off and stick to the topic.

Nibd

how can u prove this stuff like vamps and werewolve to be true? people can't transform that's true. but open up your minds. for real, people. i believe in vamps. two of my friends ar vamps. and not all vamps feed on blood. some feed on the emotions of people around them. so, open up your minds and think... :alien: or is that too hard for u to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how can u prove this stuff like vamps and werewolve to be true? people can't transform that's true. but open up your minds. for real, people. i believe in vamps. two of my friends ar vamps. and not all vamps feed on blood. some feed on the emotions of people around them. so, open up your minds and think... :alien: or is that too hard for u to do?

Welcome to UM.

My mind is wide open. You provide evidence, I'll change my mind. Real evidence.

Individuals who call themselves vampires and "feed on emotions" are not what is considered a traditional vampire. You have some one who can feed on my emotions? Cool. Let's meet and we will test this. How did you measure this?

Having a open mind doesn't mean you believe everything you are told. That is being gullible.

There are NO vampires.

Nibs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also you could read the series "Life and Teachings of the Masters of the Far East" same principle and really cool. Based on true stories and there are all the same things in them! It a religious book based on the other side of the world from Christianity and people believe in Jesus also just in a more realistic way, But most of all they believe in God. cool read try it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check out this guy - Aubrey De Gray, he thinks we can slow down the aging process. or rejuvinate ourselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_de_Grey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two thoughts to throw in the melting pot....

Am I right in thinking that scientists are homing in on the gene that causes cell aging ? I seem to recall that I heard a brief news article, but cannot be sure. If this is the case, and aging can be down to a single gene, it is feasible that that gene could be 'switched off' to prevent aging. Of course, death from accident or direct action would still be a risk. But that leads on to the question, if it were possible to alter that gene, could that gene have naturally occurred 'faulty' at some stage with the same effect ?

Second thought, if I take a cutting from a tree and grow it on, is it the same tree ? If I then take a cutting from the new tree and grow that on, is it still the first tree, or the second tree, or a third tree ?

F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two thoughts to throw in the melting pot....

Am I right in thinking that scientists are homing in on the gene that causes cell aging ? I seem to recall that I heard a brief news article, but cannot be sure. If this is the case, and aging can be down to a single gene, it is feasible that that gene could be 'switched off' to prevent aging. Of course, death from accident or direct action would still be a risk. But that leads on to the question, if it were possible to alter that gene, could that gene have naturally occurred 'faulty' at some stage with the same effect ?

Second thought, if I take a cutting from a tree and grow it on, is it the same tree ? If I then take a cutting from the new tree and grow that on, is it still the first tree, or the second tree, or a third tree ?

F

Preventing ageing would not prevent you dying of old age. Your cells would cell have limited reproduction, cells that reproduce infinitely in humans are called cancers.

Its a new tree.

Edited by Mattshark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Preventing ageing would not prevent you dying of old age. Your cells would cell have limited reproduction, cells that reproduce infinitely in humans are called cancers.

Its a new tree.

Rather an abrupt answer! I was hoping for something more than that. Anyway, I see a contradiction in your first statement for example. What if it's more a case of the supposed gene being prevented from stopping replication. In saying 'the gene that controls aging", it is not as simple as saying "you won't get wrinkly and senile." It's more a case of stopping the gene that controls you getting old. So please, could you quantify your replies...

...Paticularly the one about the tree... seeing as it is patently the same material from the first tree that is in the second... It's not a philosophical question, it's a physical one...

F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather an abrupt answer! I was hoping for something more than that. Anyway, I see a contradiction in your first statement for example. What if it's more a case of the supposed gene being prevented from stopping replication. In saying 'the gene that controls aging", it is not as simple as saying "you won't get wrinkly and senile." It's more a case of stopping the gene that controls you getting old. So please, could you quantify your replies...

...Paticularly the one about the tree... seeing as it is patently the same material from the first tree that is in the second... It's not a philosophical question, it's a physical one...

F

Cells have a limited number of reproduction all macrofauna. You stop this and you have a cancerous cells. Preventing aging is pure physical.

While it is a genetic clone, it is still a different tree. Same material is irrelevant.

If you don't like my answers that is your problem not mine. If you can't differentiate between age and death that is not my problem either.

Edited by Mattshark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cells have a limited number of reproduction all macrofauna. You stop this and you have a cancerous cells. Preventing aging is pure physical.

While it is a genetic clone, it is still a different tree. Same material is irrelevant.

If you don't like my answers that is your problem not mine. If you can't differentiate between age and death that is not my problem either.

Not the point... Isn't cancer "any malignant growth or tumor caused by abnormal and uncontrolled cell division" and not the normal replacement or division of cells that actually occurs in the body? That's what shutting off this gene would do; always supposing it were found to be both the case and possible.

This would then just allow the body to replace cells as "normal" and not in that abnormal and uncontrolled way, allowing the person to, shall we say, be alive longer, rather than "age" as you seem to have a problem with that word, but not necessarily die of old age.... Or cancer. You get it now ?

Btw, I don't dislike your answers, I just think they're rubbish... the tree would not be a clone, for example, as it would not be identical to the original. Someone who receives a transplant heart is not said to be a clone, but the donors family do say that they feel the donor is living on. So the question still stands, is the original tree still living on ?

..again, a physical question, not a psychological one.

F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the point... Isn't cancer "any malignant growth or tumor caused by abnormal and uncontrolled cell division" and not the normal replacement or division of cells that actually occurs in the body? That's what shutting off this gene would do; always supposing it were found to be both the case and possible.

This would then just allow the body to replace cells as "normal" and not in that abnormal and uncontrolled way, allowing the person to, shall we say, be alive longer, rather than "age" as you seem to have a problem with that word, but not necessarily die of old age.... Or cancer. You get it now ?

Btw, I don't dislike your answers, I just think they're rubbish... the tree would not be a clone, for example, as it would not be identical to the original. Someone who receives a transplant heart is not said to be a clone, but the donors family do say that they feel the donor is living on. So the question still stands, is the original tree still living on ?

..again, a physical question, not a psychological one.

F

Yeah I get what you are saying, it is just wrong. Preventing ageing will not allow cells to reproduce infinitely. Our cells are not evolved to that. This is not my opinion, this is basic biology. Shutting of the gene will not allow the cell to reproduce for ever. That is complete rubbish

Yeah so you think clones would be the same? No, they are not, it is a different organism, genetically identical is not the same as it being the same tree. That is just how it is. It is FA do with psychology, this is how it is in biology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So does anyone think that if there is such a gene, and it can be switched off, then such a "switching off" could have happened or would happen in nature either accidentally or as a genetic abnormality to produce a naturally born human with the trait of not suffering aging in the way that ordinary people do ?

It's said that a lot of what happens in nature can be replicated in the lab, why not nature replicating what happens in the lab ?

F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So does anyone think that if there is such a gene, and it can be switched off, then such a "switching off" could have happened or would happen in nature either accidentally or as a genetic abnormality to produce a naturally born human with the trait of not suffering aging in the way that ordinary people do ?

It's said that a lot of what happens in nature can be replicated in the lab, why not nature replicating what happens in the lab ?

F

Because in a lab we can deliberately control gene expression. It is not possible for an organism to do this, organisms do not have direct control of their genome or their offspring's genome making it extremely unlikely that it would ever happen by random mutation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... the tree would not be a clone, for example, as it would not be identical to the original. Someone who receives a transplant heart is not said to be a clone, but the donors family do say that they feel the donor is living on. So the question still stands, is the original tree still living on ?

..again, a physical question, not a psychological one.

F

Of course it would be a genetic clone as it has the same exact genetic make up as the origonal. Thats pretty much the definition of a genetic clone. So it would be a new tree in the same way that if someone cloned you, the clone would not be YOU. It would be the same genes but a seperate person, much like an identical twin i guess. The reason the new tree would perhaps not look identical to the old would be that the environment wont reproduce the exact same conditions the first had. Climate, where its planted, will over time all effect which way it stretches its branches, when and for how long it has a growth spurt etc. Thats what i think anyways though i am no biology expert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 10

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.